IRANIAN EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTION, FAMILIARITY AND USE OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN TEFL

• Authors: Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni , Leila Sadeqjoola
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Following social-constructivist approaches in education, there has been a growing interest in employing Web 2.0 technologies in language classes. While the effectiveness of these digital teaching crafts has been corroborated in many studies (see Crook et al., 2008, for a survey), there is always doubt if they have reached a normalized state in L2 classes (Bax, 2003). This study, therefore, attempts to investigate the attitude of a group of language teachers towards the effectiveness of these emerging technologies in L2 classes. There were 53 participants in the study affiliated with universities, Ministry of Education, and language schools in Dezful. A questionnaire based on Son (2011) was designed in which Likert-scaled items were used to assess the factors of familiarity, perception, and use of online technologies in the classroom. The results suggested that most of the respondents exhibited low degrees of familiarity and use towards the technologies under investigation despite considering computerized tools as effective in the teaching-learning process. Besides, further explanations in semi-structured interview sessions indicated that most of the participants expected policy makers to incorporate supplementary Information Technology (IT) courses and facilities into teacher education and in-service programs as well as educational settings.

Keywords

EN

Web 2; 0 tools; Normalization; Teachers’ Familiarity; teacher education

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 31-46

Contributors

author

Seyed Abdollah Shahrokni

• Washington State University,

author

Leila Sadeqjoola

• Fahim Language School,

References

• Atai, M. R., & Dashtestani, R. (2013). Iranian English for academic purposes (EAP) stakeholders’ attitudes toward using the Internet in EAP courses for civil engineering students: promises and challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 21-38. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2011.627872.
• Atkins, N. E., & Vasu, E. S. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 279-302.
• Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86, 525–545.
• Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present and future. System, 31, 13-48.
• Bush, M. D. (2008). Computer-assisted language learning: From vision to reality? CALICO Journal, 25(3), 443-470.
• Can, T. (2009). Learning and teaching languages online: A constructivist approach. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(1), 60-74.
• Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with CALL: Practical Approaches to Computer-Assisted Language Learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
• Chun, D. M. (2007). Come ride the wave: But where is it taking us? CALICO Journal, 24(2), 239-252.
• Crook, C., Cummings, J., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., Lewin, C., et al. (2008). Web 2.0 Technologies for Learning: The Current Landscape – Opportunities, Challenges and Tensions (research reports). Coventry: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA). Retrieved January 29, 2013, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1474/1/becta_2008_web2_currentlandscape_litrev.pdf/.
• Daly, P. (2003). The case study method and business English language teaching in impact of culture and education on learning practices. Paper presented at the 10th Annual EDiNEB Conference. Renaissance Hotel, Salzburg, Austria.
• Dashtestani, R. (2012). Barriers to the implementation of CALL in EFL courses: Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes and perspectives. The JALT CALL Journal, 8(2), 55-70.
• Dashtestani, R., & Sharifi, A. (2012). Web-based assessment of academic vocabulary: Iranian EAP students’ attitudes, confidence and self-efficacy. Paper presented at the 6th conference on issues in English language teaching in Iran, University of Tehran.
• Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
• Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41-49.
• Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93 (Focus Issue), 719-740.
• Godwin-Jones, R. (2009). Personal learning environments. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 3-9. Retrieved October 19, 2013, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/emerging.pdf.
• Golchinpour, R. (2013). ICT use in high school EFL instruction: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. MA thesis, English Department, Islamic Azad University, Khuzestan Science and Research Branch, Ahwaz, Iran,
• Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175-188.
• Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the Virtual Pub: Masculinities and Relationships Online. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269-282.
• Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Kim, H. (2002). Teachers as a barrier to technology-integrated language teaching. English Teaching, 57(2), 35-64.
• Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389-420.
• Lantolf, J. & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and Genesis of Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lapadat, J. C. (2002, July). Written interaction: A key component in online learning. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(4), Retrieved January 13, 2013, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Liu, J. (2009). A survey of EFL learners’ attitudes toward Information and Communication Technologies. English Language Teaching, 2(4). Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/4455/3797/
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Mazdayasna, G., & Tahririan, M. H. (2008). Developing a profile of the ESP needs of Iranian students: The case of students of nursing and midwifery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 277-289.
• McKay, S. L. (2006). Researching Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Mohagheghzadeh, G., & Abdolahi, M. (2002). Analysis of the attitudes of the Internet users of the university of medical sciences towards the Internet. Faslnameh Etela Rasani, 18(2), 1–10.
• Mouza, C. (2002). Learning to teach with new technology: implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272-289.
• Mullen, R., & Wedwick, L. (2008). Avoiding the digital abyss: Getting started in the classroom with youtube, digital stories, and blogs. Clearing House, 82(2), 66-69.
• Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning--parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163-178.
• Park, C. N., & Son, J.-B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80-101.
• Rakes, G. C., & Casey, H. B. (2000). An analysis of teacher concerns toward instructional technology. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/IJET/v3n1/rakes/index.html.
• Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. T. (2003). Online course effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57-73.
• Shahrokni, S. A., & Talaeizadeh, A. (2013). Learning processes in blended language learning: A mixed-methods approach. TESL-EJ, 17(3). Retrieved December 25, 2013, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume17/ej67/ej67a2/.
• Son, J. (2011, June). Online tools for language teaching. TESL-EJ, 15(1). Retrieved July 6, 2012, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej57/ej57int/
• Son, J. (2004). Internet-based Language Instruction: Study Book. Toowoomba, Australia: Distance Education Centre, University of Southern Queensland.
• Son, J., Robb, T., & Charismiadji, I. (2011). Computer literacy and competency: A survey of Indonesian teachers of English as a foreign language. CALL-EJ, 12(1), 26-42.
• Taghva, M. (2001). The analysis of the rate of using the Internet by academic staff. Faslnameh Motaleaate Modiriat, 29(30), 71–88.
• Voos, R. (2003). Blended Learning: What is it and where might it take us? Sloan-C View, 2(1), 2-5.
• Wellington, J. (2005). Has ICT come of age? Recurring debates on the role of ICT in Education, 1982–2004. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140500068419.
• Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.